Google LLC told the Delhi High Court on Tuesday that YouTuber Dhruv Rathee's video on Hindu deities, which is alleged to be defamatory and hurting religious feelings, has been withheld in India and not globally.

Google's counsel told Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma that the action has not been taken globally as the issue of passing of global injunction is pending consideration before a division bench.

The development comes in a fresh application seeking immediate compliance of an order passed by Union Government's Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) to remove the video. The fresh plea is filed in a petition filed by lawyer Amita Sachdeva, who has also filed a criminal case against Rathee over his video.

Sachdeva is aggrieved by Rathee's video of March 21 titled “Can Hindus eat BEEF? Kerala Story 2 Exposed”. In the video, Rathee has discussed dietary habits in Hindu scriptures. He argued that ancient texts and sages mention deities like Lord Ram and Lord Krishna consuming meat.

On July 03, the Court had asked GAC to decide Sachdeva's appeal seeking removal of the video. On July 15, GAC passed an order for take down of the video in 24 hours.

Appearing in person today, Sachdeva said that on July 30, YouTube has only withheld the video in India and not globally, which is only a partial compliance of the GAC order.

The counsel appearing for Google then said that the video has been taken down in India and that a global injunction issue is pending before the division bench (DB).

He said that Courts have been passing orders of takedown of content only in Indian domain and not globally.

On this, the Court told Sachdeva: “He has given you the answer that the issue regarding global injunction is already pending before the DB. What they could do they have done and whatever remains that will be seen after what DB decides. I think the DB is looking into the issue concerning global injunction. If you think you want to keep it alive for sometime, you can do that.”

ASG Chetan Sharma appearing for the Government said that once a video has been objected to, then the order must apply across the board. "Otherwise the baton will be passed from a to b, then b to c, and c to d…. At least some indication must come in the order. Otherwise it will be an endless exercise of filing petitions,” he said.

The Court ultimately adjourned the matter to September 03.

Title: Amita Sachdeva v. Union of India & Ors